New Sam Bankman-Fried trial would be huge waste of court’s time, judge says

In a decisive ruling, a judge has rejected Sam Bankman-Fried's plea for a new trial, labeling his claims as a waste of valuable court resources. The judge characterized the disgraced FTX founder's motion as a desperate attempt to reshape his public image, drawing a stark contrast to the realities of his situation. Bankman-Fried, sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024 for orchestrating one of the most significant financial frauds in U.S. history, was found guilty on multiple counts, including wire fraud and money laundering. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan highlighted that there is already an ongoing appeal in a different court, yet Bankman-Fried sought a new trial by asserting the emergence of new witnesses and evidence that, according to him, could have aided his defense. The former crypto mogul alleged that the Biden administration's Department of Justice had intimidated these witnesses into silence or caused them to provide false testimonies. He even requested Judge Kaplan's recusal from the case. However, Kaplan pointed out that none of the supposed new witnesses were indeed newly discovered and criticized the absence of evidence supporting Bankman-Fried's conspiracy theories. Judge Kaplan emphasized that Bankman-Fried's claims were “entirely contradicted by the record.” He expressed concern that accommodating Bankman-Fried’s request would squander judicial resources, as it could necessitate another judge reviewing a complex and extensive case history. Additionally, the three witnesses he claimed could significantly impact his defense were known to him during the trial, yet he failed to compel their testimonies. The judge also expressed skepticism regarding the credibility of one witness, Ryan Salame, who has since claimed he lied under oath. Kaplan noted that Salame's current statements must be approached with caution, stating that even if taken at face value, they could not meet the threshold required for a new trial. The credibility of such self-serving social media assertions raises serious doubts, according to the judge.